"Beware Ramps". Thus, until very recently, did a sign at Hove warn drivers. Insert a dash between those two words and it would have doubly forearmed the Sussex bowlers whenever that cleanest and most clinical of drivers Mark Ramprakash ventured to the seaside. Insert a comma and it would have served as a concise and apt summation, to the man himself, of a career that delivered less than it might have but a great deal more than his critics might care to acknowledge.

Amid the endless flurry of riddle-wrapped-in-an-enigma-type theories published about Ramprakash - especially since Surrey decided they had no further use for the former Strictly Come Dancing champion and finest strictly county batsman of modern times, compelling him to announce his retirement - all sorts of reasons have been proffered for his failure to convert domestic godness into international stature, all amounting, in essence, to either excessive intensity or fragile temperament.

"He was a world-class player - or should have been," reckoned Nasser Hussain, who saw his long-time pal's struggles as evidence "of what a thin dividing line there can be between the great and those who underachieve". "He obviously has the technical ability," attested Alec Stewart in the foreword to Ramprakash's account of the 2005 season, Four More Weeks - Diary of a stand-in captain, "but mental strength and self-belief are also required…"

Not once over the past week, though, have I seen any reference to the burden he shouldered.

Born to an Irish mother and a father who had left Guyana at the outset of the sixties, blessed/cursed with dark, handsome features (well, Arlene Philips, the Strictly Come Dancing judge, did hail him as "a mesmerising matinee idol"), Ramprakash was always a cricketer apart, a boy apart. While both fed on it, the steelier Hussain - whose Indian father, helpfully, was a legend in East London cricket circles - was more able to rise above prejudice and shrug it off.

When we first met, outside the Grace Gates in April 1987, a couple of days after he'd made a debut half-century, he was 17: sweet, intense and glory-eyed. We'd done our A levels within half a mile of each other, either side of Harrow Hill, and I began following and reporting on his fortunes with the sort of paternal zealousness that infests all sportswriters when they fall for a bright young thing worthy of their adjectival sponsorship. He was still only 18 when crowned Man of the Match in the 1988 NatWest Trophy final, his first 50-over outing, a nerveless 56 guiding Middlesex to a three-wicket squeak. At the nadir of one of English cricket's lowest ebbs, we were talking worlds and oysters.

Before long - perhaps too hastily, assuredly too soon - he became a man apart. On occasion, someone, usually the worse for beer, would splutter something racially abusive. Turning the other cheek was easier some days than others. When we last met five years ago, deep in the bowels of the BBC's White City studios after a practice session for Strictly Come Dancing, he made light of it, as ever, but beneath the fortitude and forbearance lurked a touching sensitivity and disarming vulnerability. While willing to cite only one instance of "racialism" - upcountry at Uxbridge - he "never found it that easy to take stick from crowds, let it go over my head the way Mike Gatting did".

If there can be a numerical definition of disappointing, you'd be hard-pressed to beat 27.32, his average from 52 Tests. It is probably the second-most oft-quoted four-figure cricket number (to two decimal places) behind 99.94. In baseball, any batter averaging less than .200 - a hit every five at-bats - is said to have sunk below the Mendoza Line, named after Minnie Mendoza, an inept Minnesota Twins hitter of the 1970s (by way of underlining the infectiousness of our sporting lingua franca, Michael Feroli, JP Morgan Chase's chief US economist, recently described his country's fiscal form as dipping below the Mendoza Line). Perhaps the cut-off point for underachieving willow-wielders should be the Ramprakash Line?

Was it stage fright? Not obviously. Rewind to Headingley 1991, scene of his Test debut against West Indies. He was 21. Confronted by the mighty might of Curtly Ambrose, Malcolm Marshall, Patrick Patterson and Courtney Walsh, he added a crucial 78 with Graham Gooch in the second innings to help plot England's first home win in a Wisden Trophy contest for 22 years. An ever-present in the series - a barely feasible accolade for a non-established England batsman over the last fifth of the 20th century - he passed 18 eight times in nine innings but never reached 30. The pattern was set: immaculate from first gear to third but a stuttery accelerator prone to road rage.

The England dressing room, unhelpfully, was riddled with insecurity; Graeme Hick, a fellow debutant that summer, was another victim. "There were a lot of casualties, a lot of one-cap wonders," Ramprakash reflected that afternoon at the Beeb. "It's the luxury of having 18 first-class counties: the selectors probably gave in too quickly to the claims of alternative candidates."

Nor did it help that he so plainly sought the unattainable - perfection. A cheap, insubstantial or dubious dismissal and the remains of the day were spent in self-flagellation. All too symptomatic was that obsession with bats. "Not even my team-mates are safe," he once admitted, "because I'm always going round the dressing room checking that they haven't got anything better than mine. I know, it's an illness…"

Seldom, moreover, did he have the luxury of a settled position, batting everywhere from No. 1 to No. 7. Not until Bridgetown 1998, at the 38th attempt, did he broach three figures. The best lifted him; against lesser mortals he self-destructed, whipping himself so hard that fear of failure became a greater motivation than hunger for success. Half his 14 scores of 50-plus - including his only other century - came against arguably the best attacks Australia have ever fielded. Five of his 13 innings at Lord's, the square he knows best, brought five ducks - a ground record. The greater the expectation, the likelier the swoon. He could defeat bowlers and fielders, just not himself.

At bottom, he was born about 15 years too early. Too early to benefit from central contracts, from continuity of selection, from psychologists, from enlightened management, from a society less shocked by difference, and above all from an England less conscious of skin colour

Almost as profound a source of regret has been the eerie similarity of the path trodden by Owais Shah, who looked up to Ramprakash as an older brother and also suffered for being different and, at times, difficult, particularly under the aegis of Duncan Fletcher. Both could have done with a supportive father figure other than the one to whom they'd been born. Shah's was overbearing, too demanding, too unforgiving; Ramprakash's had wisdom to impart but found wilful ears. "My dad had so much information he wanted to give," he wrote, "but when I was younger I always wanted to do things my own way."

Would those Test stats look any better had he, rather than Hussain, been appointed England captain in 1999 (the Essex man was considered marginally calmer, which didn't say much for his rival)? Hussain didn't deem it that long a shot. "If I could change my ways as captain, I'm sure Ramps could have done too, and I'm sure he would have made a good captain."

Yet for all the intensity of the fire blazing within, Ramprakash was wary of putting others through what he had endured during his formative years as a professional, in a domineering Middlesex dressing room full of singular chaps brimming with intimidating self-belief. That's why he rejected the hair-dryer approach favoured by both Hussain and Steve Rixon, the Surrey coach who decided he could never be more than a stand-in.

In his 30s came Surrey and serenity. From 2003 to 2010, aided by a change of trigger movement in the winter of 2004-05, he pocketed 53 first-class hundreds and 13,062 runs at 78.22, averaging 90 in 2009 and more than 100 in both 2006 and 2007. He also bagged a century of first-class centuries, the 25th member of a club that is most unlikely to admit any more. With 114 in toto, he stands shoulder to shoulder with King Viv, his boyhood hero. Among the 44 batsmen who have tallied 34,000 first-class runs, only Geoff Boycott, Wally Hammond and Len Hutton have averaged more than Ramprakash's 54.60. Not what you would call shabby company.

"To say Mark underachieved is extremely harsh," asserted Angus Fraser, who used to pick up the 16-year-old Ramprakash en route to Lord's. "In an age when traits like patience, discipline and attention to detail are ignored for the desire to entertain and be sexy, we may never see his like again."

At bottom, he was born about 15 years too early. Too early to benefit from central contracts, from continuity of selection, from psychologists, from enlightened management, from a society less shocked by difference, and above all from an England less conscious of skin colour.

Did he possess the "slavery gene"? Michael Johnson, the only man to win gold at 200m and 400m at the same Olympics, and hence something of an expert in such matters, alludes to this in a Channel 4 documentary to be screened on Thursday. "All my life I believed I became an athlete through my own determination, but it's impossible to think that being descended from slaves hasn't left an imprint through the generations. I believe there is a serious gene within me." Perhaps, in Ramprakash's case, that gene is too serious?

Then again, a local hero twice over, as John Lennon never quite said, is still something to be.

Rob Steen is a sportswriter and senior lecturer in sports journalism at the University of Brighton

If Ramprakash and Hick had played for NZ for instance, they would have ended up worldbeaters. The treatment metted out to them by Engish selectors was laughed at by players and fans in both Australia and NZ.

POSTED BY
njr1330
on | July 12, 2012, 20:59 GMT

As John Buchanan said of him: 'Afflicted with talent' ... or as Graham Hick said, when asked 'Shouldn't someone of your talent have scored 30 Test Hundreds?' 'Yes...but if I had, I'd have been someone else!'

POSTED BY
HumungousFungus
on | July 12, 2012, 16:41 GMT

Ramprakash's failure to assert himself in international cricket remains a mystery. There is no question that he was good enough. There are 23 batsmen who have scored over a hundred FC centuries, and there is not one name on the list that doesn't belong there as an all-time great of cricket. The argument that there are cheap runs available in county cricket is flawed, simply because, unlike the sub-continent, for example, the nature of the pitches does not lend itself to massive feats of prolonged run-gorging by any other than the very best. Which makes the lack of international success even more baffling. He has been the dominant player in English county cricket for the last decade (with only Trescothick briefly threatening his place) and yet, and yet, it was not to be for England. Quality bowling? Shabby selection? Messy tactical thinking? Dodgy selectors? Yes, yes, yes, and yes. But ultimately, only HE knows the real reasons, and I suspect, sadly, that they were all in his head...

POSTED BY
Sameer-hbk
on | July 12, 2012, 11:50 GMT

Whats with English and pressure? Cricket is not even the leading sport in the country. He played 52 tests at an average of 27 and that means he was just not good enough. There are plenty of Ranji Trophy players who average a lot more. Was watching Wimbledon finals the other day and little Andy cried after the match with people talking about 'pressure on the poor guy'!!! what pressure? Its just one sport in a country where there are many that are passionately followed. Seems same thing here. He is a mediocre batsman with passable skills who was not good enough to make it... No big deal.

POSTED BY
shillingsworth
on | July 12, 2012, 8:44 GMT

@thalalara - you can't measure the relative standards of county and test cricket by the stats of a single player. Michael Vaughan's test average was higher than his county average. Does this mean that county cricket is of a higher standard? Of course not.

POSTED BY
4test90
on | July 12, 2012, 3:55 GMT

I will never forget leaving work in Dec 1998 and walking down to the MCG for what I expected would be an easy Aust victory in the 4th Test. With Aust 2/103 chasing 175, Ramprakash produced an astonishing catch to get rid of Langer, and you could see England grow two feet taller, Gough and Headley did the rest and Eng won by 12 runs, but it was def Ramps that inspired them

POSTED BY
cloudmess
on | July 11, 2012, 23:38 GMT

Ramprakash approached batting like a concert pianist approaches a Beethoven sonata: an innings a state of being which he wanted to perfect as much as possible. He wanted to bat first and to score runs second - note the way he would often shoulder arms at the start of an innings, to study the pitch and the bowlers and work out his approach. Not for him the initiative-siezing counter-punches of so many moderns. Not for him the down and dirty hunger to eke out runs at any cost, unlike his less-aesthetic contemporaries, Hussain and Thorpe.
To reach this ideal stage, he needed certain things in his favour, and like the classical performer, he could get easily upset and distracted by unforeseen factors (being asked to bat somewhere he didn't like, facing an unfamiliar bowler, unsatisfactory pitches in 2012 etc).
He almost certainly would be handled better today in the modern English set-back. Let it not be forgotten that this artist-batsmen still achieved so, so much.

POSTED BY
shillingsworth
on | July 11, 2012, 19:44 GMT

@mrpfister - Bell scored a 50 on debut and a maiden hundred in his 3rd test. He made the selectors' job a lot easier than Ramprakash did. Bell has had some poor series but he's always had a decent career record to fall back on. @Kunal-Talgeri - You may be right that Ramprakash was managed insensitively. However some of the other players you mention would not have thrived under any management - McCague, Such, Brown and Knight weren't good enough.

The above stats shows clearly the quality of English county cricket... lets not unnecessarily glorify his domestic feats......

POSTED BY
hotwife
on | July 12, 2012, 22:35 GMT

If Ramprakash and Hick had played for NZ for instance, they would have ended up worldbeaters. The treatment metted out to them by Engish selectors was laughed at by players and fans in both Australia and NZ.

POSTED BY
njr1330
on | July 12, 2012, 20:59 GMT

As John Buchanan said of him: 'Afflicted with talent' ... or as Graham Hick said, when asked 'Shouldn't someone of your talent have scored 30 Test Hundreds?' 'Yes...but if I had, I'd have been someone else!'

POSTED BY
HumungousFungus
on | July 12, 2012, 16:41 GMT

Ramprakash's failure to assert himself in international cricket remains a mystery. There is no question that he was good enough. There are 23 batsmen who have scored over a hundred FC centuries, and there is not one name on the list that doesn't belong there as an all-time great of cricket. The argument that there are cheap runs available in county cricket is flawed, simply because, unlike the sub-continent, for example, the nature of the pitches does not lend itself to massive feats of prolonged run-gorging by any other than the very best. Which makes the lack of international success even more baffling. He has been the dominant player in English county cricket for the last decade (with only Trescothick briefly threatening his place) and yet, and yet, it was not to be for England. Quality bowling? Shabby selection? Messy tactical thinking? Dodgy selectors? Yes, yes, yes, and yes. But ultimately, only HE knows the real reasons, and I suspect, sadly, that they were all in his head...

POSTED BY
Sameer-hbk
on | July 12, 2012, 11:50 GMT

Whats with English and pressure? Cricket is not even the leading sport in the country. He played 52 tests at an average of 27 and that means he was just not good enough. There are plenty of Ranji Trophy players who average a lot more. Was watching Wimbledon finals the other day and little Andy cried after the match with people talking about 'pressure on the poor guy'!!! what pressure? Its just one sport in a country where there are many that are passionately followed. Seems same thing here. He is a mediocre batsman with passable skills who was not good enough to make it... No big deal.

POSTED BY
shillingsworth
on | July 12, 2012, 8:44 GMT

@thalalara - you can't measure the relative standards of county and test cricket by the stats of a single player. Michael Vaughan's test average was higher than his county average. Does this mean that county cricket is of a higher standard? Of course not.

POSTED BY
4test90
on | July 12, 2012, 3:55 GMT

I will never forget leaving work in Dec 1998 and walking down to the MCG for what I expected would be an easy Aust victory in the 4th Test. With Aust 2/103 chasing 175, Ramprakash produced an astonishing catch to get rid of Langer, and you could see England grow two feet taller, Gough and Headley did the rest and Eng won by 12 runs, but it was def Ramps that inspired them

POSTED BY
cloudmess
on | July 11, 2012, 23:38 GMT

Ramprakash approached batting like a concert pianist approaches a Beethoven sonata: an innings a state of being which he wanted to perfect as much as possible. He wanted to bat first and to score runs second - note the way he would often shoulder arms at the start of an innings, to study the pitch and the bowlers and work out his approach. Not for him the initiative-siezing counter-punches of so many moderns. Not for him the down and dirty hunger to eke out runs at any cost, unlike his less-aesthetic contemporaries, Hussain and Thorpe.
To reach this ideal stage, he needed certain things in his favour, and like the classical performer, he could get easily upset and distracted by unforeseen factors (being asked to bat somewhere he didn't like, facing an unfamiliar bowler, unsatisfactory pitches in 2012 etc).
He almost certainly would be handled better today in the modern English set-back. Let it not be forgotten that this artist-batsmen still achieved so, so much.

POSTED BY
shillingsworth
on | July 11, 2012, 19:44 GMT

@mrpfister - Bell scored a 50 on debut and a maiden hundred in his 3rd test. He made the selectors' job a lot easier than Ramprakash did. Bell has had some poor series but he's always had a decent career record to fall back on. @Kunal-Talgeri - You may be right that Ramprakash was managed insensitively. However some of the other players you mention would not have thrived under any management - McCague, Such, Brown and Knight weren't good enough.

The above stats shows clearly the quality of English county cricket... lets not unnecessarily glorify his domestic feats......

POSTED BY
AndyZaltzmannsHair
on | July 11, 2012, 12:11 GMT

I doubt Ramprakash faced much discrimination in his cricketing career. He was always acceptable to the English, much in the same vein as Nasser Hussain. He was always seen as "one of them". There are many communities from the Afro-Caribbean and Asian, which aren't deemed acceptable in mainstream British culture.

POSTED BY
Kunal-Talgeri
on | July 11, 2012, 11:06 GMT

Mark Ramprakash, as an international cricketer, brought joy to me for many reasons in my school years. Here are three reasons: 1) He owned the front-foot cover drive -- it was elegant with a follow-through worth sculpting. 2) His close-in alertness and inner-circle fielding as well as batting consistency in the 1994 Ashes in Australia. The batting was beautiful to watch in scores ranging between 30 and the 70s. 3) He smiled through his travails: no regrets, no excuses.
The England cricket administrators and management were clueless if they had unconventional talent at their disposal: Ramps, spinner Peter Such, bowler Martin McCague, all-rounder Chris Lewis, openers Alistair Brown and Nick Knight--even the late Ben Hollioake was poorly managed (rushed into a Test debut against Warne!) The likes of Nasser Hussain, Graham Thorpe and, to a lesser extent, Andy Caddick rose despite a poor system.

POSTED BY
Solipsismic
on | July 11, 2012, 9:55 GMT

Some good analysis but it is an indictment not just of English cricket but England that colour is/was a factor. Football, its protagonists oft-portrayed as neanderthals, learned to appreciate players for their skills long before the so-called gentlemen cricketers did so. Remember the furore over Pakistan's reverse-swing when it first came about? Now, every ... ahem ... Tom, Dick and Harry is doing it.

POSTED BY
Lara213
on | July 11, 2012, 9:49 GMT

Sounds like he suffered some form of OCD where you become easily distracted or obssessed by something barely perceptible to others that starts to consume you and prevents you performing as you should.

POSTED BY
CricketPlayer1
on | July 11, 2012, 9:25 GMT

Does anyone consider that the 'sense of occassion' the two day build up and huge media pressure that comes with international cricket were the major killers for ramps-I've always thought that the 'treadmill' of county cricket just allowed him to get on with his own game and removed the fear of failure by giving him another go the next day! He could clearly play bowlers of the highest standard!

What ever it was he was a great talent, I like the comparison to Ian Bell and can only wonder what might of been had he had the opportunity.

POSTED BY
mrpfister
on | July 11, 2012, 6:22 GMT

The 2003-10 stat is the key one for me. Any other player who had scored that amount of runs and centuries at that average would have definitely been picked for England. Given Ramps' talent, he should have been given as many chances as he needed until he made it at test level. Ian Bell was and look at the player he's turned into. He was almost recalled in both 2006 and 2007 after his 2000 run seasons. If he had been, I have no doubt that he would have succeeded at last.

POSTED BY
on | July 11, 2012, 6:09 GMT

Every time someone reaches 100 first-class centuries knowing commentators say he will be the last player to do so. I remember this being said about Colin Cowdrey in 1973.

POSTED BY
on | July 11, 2012, 4:05 GMT

He Could defeat bowlers and fielders, just not himself... sums up Mark's career. A great talent. A career very similar to India's Laxman, Stylish middle order, indifferent International to start with,prolific against the Aussies, Major difference Indian's persisted the Brits gave up... Best of Luck Ramps...

No featured comments at the moment.

POSTED BY
on | July 11, 2012, 4:05 GMT

He Could defeat bowlers and fielders, just not himself... sums up Mark's career. A great talent. A career very similar to India's Laxman, Stylish middle order, indifferent International to start with,prolific against the Aussies, Major difference Indian's persisted the Brits gave up... Best of Luck Ramps...

POSTED BY
on | July 11, 2012, 6:09 GMT

Every time someone reaches 100 first-class centuries knowing commentators say he will be the last player to do so. I remember this being said about Colin Cowdrey in 1973.

POSTED BY
mrpfister
on | July 11, 2012, 6:22 GMT

The 2003-10 stat is the key one for me. Any other player who had scored that amount of runs and centuries at that average would have definitely been picked for England. Given Ramps' talent, he should have been given as many chances as he needed until he made it at test level. Ian Bell was and look at the player he's turned into. He was almost recalled in both 2006 and 2007 after his 2000 run seasons. If he had been, I have no doubt that he would have succeeded at last.

POSTED BY
CricketPlayer1
on | July 11, 2012, 9:25 GMT

Does anyone consider that the 'sense of occassion' the two day build up and huge media pressure that comes with international cricket were the major killers for ramps-I've always thought that the 'treadmill' of county cricket just allowed him to get on with his own game and removed the fear of failure by giving him another go the next day! He could clearly play bowlers of the highest standard!

What ever it was he was a great talent, I like the comparison to Ian Bell and can only wonder what might of been had he had the opportunity.

POSTED BY
Lara213
on | July 11, 2012, 9:49 GMT

Sounds like he suffered some form of OCD where you become easily distracted or obssessed by something barely perceptible to others that starts to consume you and prevents you performing as you should.

POSTED BY
Solipsismic
on | July 11, 2012, 9:55 GMT

Some good analysis but it is an indictment not just of English cricket but England that colour is/was a factor. Football, its protagonists oft-portrayed as neanderthals, learned to appreciate players for their skills long before the so-called gentlemen cricketers did so. Remember the furore over Pakistan's reverse-swing when it first came about? Now, every ... ahem ... Tom, Dick and Harry is doing it.

POSTED BY
Kunal-Talgeri
on | July 11, 2012, 11:06 GMT

Mark Ramprakash, as an international cricketer, brought joy to me for many reasons in my school years. Here are three reasons: 1) He owned the front-foot cover drive -- it was elegant with a follow-through worth sculpting. 2) His close-in alertness and inner-circle fielding as well as batting consistency in the 1994 Ashes in Australia. The batting was beautiful to watch in scores ranging between 30 and the 70s. 3) He smiled through his travails: no regrets, no excuses.
The England cricket administrators and management were clueless if they had unconventional talent at their disposal: Ramps, spinner Peter Such, bowler Martin McCague, all-rounder Chris Lewis, openers Alistair Brown and Nick Knight--even the late Ben Hollioake was poorly managed (rushed into a Test debut against Warne!) The likes of Nasser Hussain, Graham Thorpe and, to a lesser extent, Andy Caddick rose despite a poor system.

POSTED BY
AndyZaltzmannsHair
on | July 11, 2012, 12:11 GMT

I doubt Ramprakash faced much discrimination in his cricketing career. He was always acceptable to the English, much in the same vein as Nasser Hussain. He was always seen as "one of them". There are many communities from the Afro-Caribbean and Asian, which aren't deemed acceptable in mainstream British culture.